The movie of course has a couple of nice moments but overall the comedy is really lacking, which is a disappointing aspect of the movie. New Russians comedy - idiotia as the worst in American comedies. I like movies, and I've seen hundreds of foreign comedies but I couldn't understand even half of the jokes. This film is based on the play by and was one of the most attended movies in the Soviet Union in 1973 with more than 60 million tickets sold. Although the influence of the 20's is mainly atmospheric, it is nevertheless visible in the fact that most of the character's names sound funny in the way usual for the satirical literature of that period.
This comedy was adapted from a play by Bulgakov that I've had trouble finding a copy of, so I don't know how much it diverges. These visual homages would have been obvious, one assumes, to Russian audiences of the time and surely would have made it all the more comedic. There were other deviations, not related to changes designed to modernize the setting. For instance, Shpak's was replaced in the film with a , and the was envisioned as using more advanced technology such as. In fact, Shurik's wife in the separate dream world seems almost a caricature of Hollywood with her posters and dreams of falling in love with Yakin and finding fame. And the Russian will always watch this movie. I would say that even modern day Russians - who have never lived in The Soviet Union, who have no idea what Iron Curtain or Warsaw Treaty Organization is will never understand and enjoy it in full.
This film is popular and remembered because of its many layers. The plot itself is a rather standard one about ordinary guys thrust into a strange culture with action and adventure. For instance, Shpak's was replaced in the film with a , and the was envisioned as using more advanced technology such as s. Also, there are many little social comments that those who haven't lived in, visited, or studied Soviet Union wouldn't understand completely i. On the contrary, the whole thing has a huge, infectious sense of fun about it, from the silly opening credits to Miloslavsky's breaking of the fourth wall, to the self-consciously reset ending. This is exemplified in the episode in which Miloslavsky is robbing Shpak's apartment and cannot get out; Gaidai cuts to the many faces of statues and paintings that, in context, are shocked and seem to mock him. Even if one does not understand any Russian, the movie is quite watchable in subtitled versions.
It feels like everyone involved decided they gave a damn only about making a fun movie, and the fun is infectious. Reality was shown in black in white in the beginning of the film and the when Aleksandr had an accident he was unconscious and dreamt all of the events in color only to wake up in reality which the film ends in black and white. As for the comment about the thief looking as a porn star and the probability that the producer intended this - it is absolutely impossible. Ivan Vasi'lievich brings entertainment value to the forefront. The sets themselves are also fantastic, and Ivan's the tsar, not the bureaucrat palace appears lifted straight out of Eisenstein's 1947 feature. Full surname of the Bunsha in a play - Bunsha-Koretsky. Yes the story line is not too realistic, still it's pure comedy, without any attempts to become classics in sci-fi genre.
Genre films, such as the melodrama, crime, sci-fi, romance or adventure film, were fundamental to the years of stagnation. This was done to show the contrast between reality and dream respectively. In the United States the film has sometimes been sold under the title Ivan Vasilievich: Back to the Future. As one can imagine, farcical situations emerge from the two being unfamiliar with each other's times and social positions, but the jokes themselves don't seem predictable. He is presumably an older version of the protagonist of two previous Leonid Gaidai films: and , played by the same actor, ; this connection, though, is not stated outright and neither of these earlier films are referenced. There are a lot of chases and action, so you can still enjoy the film even if some of the Russian dialogue passes you by. In the play, Ivan Vasilievich Bunsha is the son of a nobleman, something which, as a conscientious Soviet bureaucrat, he tries to hide.
This film is the classics for those who speak Russian. Despite the aforementioned inconsistencies, the film can be considered a fairly faithful and accurate adaptation. The thief is especially funny, although with the mustache he came across looking like an armature porn star at first. This isn't mentioned in the film, and would have been an anachronism in 1973. But to enjoy the language one should have a notion about old-Slavic language.
The painting depicts Ivan the Terrible killing his son but he fails to recognize himself. He is presumably an older version of the protagonist of two previous Leonid Gaidai films: and , played by the same actor, ; this connection, though, is not stated outright and neither of these earlier films are referenced. The resulting change ended up being more humorous. In the play, Ivan Vasilievich Bunsha is the son of a nobleman, something which, as a conscientious Soviet bureaucrat, he tries to hide. From laughter by those present who spoke fluent Russian I think that there are probably some fairly good verbal jokes too. Directing-wise the movie is quite flawed, as some of the sequences don't flow in well with each other and the movie features some little mistakes, such as a boom-mike hanging in frame.
More imported eggplant caviar anyone? I own two copies of this film, one purchased in Russia no subtitles , and one I've acquired recently to show it to my wife with subtitles. The Soviet citizen during the Brezhnev years saw an increase in the standard of living prompting a greater middle class and permanently instilling a lifestyle of consumerism. Many of the charachter's sayings passed into a proverb and are widely used in informal talk. What makes the movie special is superb acting, witty dialog, good pacing, and engaging music. Lastly it should be noted that the locations and sets used for the historical or rather, pseudo-historical scenes are extraordinarily beautiful and sumptuous. In the original play, Bunsha and Miloslavsky knowingly disable the machine to seal the gateway between the two time periods, but are dragged into the past, along with the key to the machine, forcing Timofeyev to make a replacement key. But to put this whimsical ditty up there as the fourth best Science Fiction film ever, with the greats of Star Wars and The Matrix and above Blade Runner and Alien leads me to believe that something is wrong! Contrary to what may seem to a foreign audience, the chase sequences in the movie serve only as a rather ineffectual background for the main comical action, which is almost entirely verbal and basically relies on the combination of contemporary language with its archaic counterpart of the 16th century - a detonating mixture that is guaranteed to kill the native-speaking audience.